BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 — United States military forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight under a tough new security setup ... American officials said today. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/international/worldspecial/14IRAQ.html I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. Obviously something must be done. And equally obviously, I'm glad I'm not a soldier over there who would have to do such a thing. Maybe some folks on these boards with military experience can weigh in on how they'd feel about shooting a looter.
This is Bremer's doing. It's a high risk policy, that's for sure. I hope, at least, the orders are not to shoot to kill unless the looter has a weapon. And we all pray that after one or two get popped, that the show of force causes the looters to get real jobs. This is exactly the kind of "heads I lose, tails you win" dilemma us doves foresaw.
[leftist]If the US and British militaries don't do anything about the looters, they're guilty of allowing Iraq's national treasures to be plundered with impunity. If they do do anything about the looters, they're just another imperialist occupying power seeking to suppress the will of the people.[/leftist]
Gee, that's funny - I thought I was a leftist, but if that's what leftists think, then I guess I'm not one. Who knew I was a closet republican? For real man - I'm not blaming anyone or rushing to any judgement - please. All I wanted to know was what a military style person, like yourself I think, would feel like if they were supposed to stop some looting.
If leftists had it their way, there wouldn't be any looters in the first place, because there never would have been an invasion. Whether the looters destroy their own country or are shot dead, engendering a backlash against the US and its occupation, it's a no-win situation for both Iraq and America. This cannot end well.
Oh, sure it can. A pro-US govt, bases in Iraq, access to the 2nd largest oil reserves. This can still work out great, especially considering how well the actual war went. OTOH, religious fanatics could take over the country and we'd be worse off than before. So far, so good.
For your next reading from The Book of the Completely Dim-witted for Idiots, maybe you'd like to explain how the only two options are: 1) Do nothing about the looters. 2) Shoot them dead. Fascist.
There's no way this is going to be pretty. It wasn't pretty in Iraq last year, ten years ago, 40 years ago. It sure as hell isn't going to be for the next few months. The stakes are so high, we can't afford to fuck up. If that means a dose of fascism, so be it. We can't afford to lose; it's that simple.
I'm unclear as to how resorting to "a dose of fascism" isn't automatically viewed as a loss for this country.
If you're viewing it from the persepctive of the Iraqis, then a dose is far better than what they've be living under. If you're thinking of our interests, well, obviously our interests in the matter go beyond the welfare of Iraqis.
Like the other 6 billion people on the planet, including (or especially) the anti-war crowd. I felt this war was foolishly risky, but am pleasantly surprised how well things have worked out so far.
Easy for anyone to say from here. One can imagine the ordinary Iraqis taking the 'dose' of that 'medicine' might not be so thrilled, but what the hell.
Rummy denies any such order has been given. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59315-2003May15.html